clients_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key constraint (clients with invoices/documents cannot be deleted), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether deletion is reversible, what happens to related records, permission requirements, or the response format. For a permanent destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that state the primary function and one critical constraint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose and key safety constraint. Given the 100% schema coverage documenting both parameters, and the critical deletion constraint stated, the description is mostly sufficient. However, for a permanent destructive action with no annotations and no output schema or error documentation, omitting the response format and related-record impact leaves some ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the uuid and companyId parameters clearly. The description repeats the uuid concept implicitly (delete by UUID) and the single constraint that should trigger an error. It adds little beyond what the schema conveys, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a client by UUID' with a specific verb (delete), resource (client), and identifier type (UUID). It also differentiates the scope by noting the deletion constraint on clients with invoices/documents, distinguishing this from bulk_delete and other client operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when NOT to use this tool (when a client has invoices/documents, use bulk_delete or other approaches), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide context on when this is the appropriate choice versus clients_bulk_delete. The constraint about existing invoices/documents serves as implicit guidance that this tool is only appropriate for clients without financial history, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.